French and British Sonar

LuftWolf · 06-22-06, 04:29 AM

The United States and the UK have an open door agreement for military technology, so its safe to assume that the capabilities of all UK equipment is comparable to that of the United States.

Germany has the third largest economy in the world, and is a major exporter of high technology goods, as well as military hardware.

France is major exporter of military equipment as well, and we are all familiar with the technological capabilities of the Japanese.

In general, I'd probably have to go US, UK/Commonwealth, Germany/Japan, France, the rest of the EU and THEN (probably by a fairly wide margin) Russia and China, but that's strictly an amateur appraisal.

06-22-06, 05:28 AM

You forgot to mention the UK is a number one weapons technology producer as well. You know, Marconi? etc. So I doubt they're good thanks only to the "open-door" policy.

LuftWolf · 06-22-06, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

You forgot to mention the UK is a number one weapons technology producer as well. You know, Marconi? etc. So I doubt they're good thanks only to the "open-door" policy.

Well, I assumed that this was implied.

Amizaur · 06-22-06, 07:48 AM

They were at least very good - french, german and swedish sonars (swedish radars foer long time equal to US and GB). Sonars in most cases better than russian, the Russians sometimes copied them if managed to get documentation. Currently the new most modern sonars produced by euro-consorties (joined british, german, french and italic partners) are probably on par or in some cases better than US systems (for example torpedo seekers for Black Shark, low frequency sonars for Type-212 and new euro-frigates that are said to have det range up to 10 times better than previous generations and already demostrated impressive detection and tracking ranges against quiet submarines... can't remeber details, maybe I'll find them later but I remember i was very impreessed... something like SURTASS pefrormance on small frigate and shallow water :-) or at least TB-29...

06-22-06, 08:47 AM

Nope...I'll never believe anyone has better systems then the Americans. Never. Equal to...doubtful, but maybe? Better? No. Wishful thinking...that's all.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II · 06-22-06, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Nope...I'll never believe anyone has better systems then the Americans. Never. Equal to...doubtful, but maybe? Better? No. Wishful thinking...that's all.

I can buy the general concept of someone's equipment being better than the US, but the idea that a small frigate sonar would be better than SURTASS is admittedly hard to chew down. It is hard to believe the frigate sonar would have the physical aperture and the like necessary to beat the TB-29, let alone the even longer and unwieldy SURTASS, even if we assume somewhat better signal processing.

06-22-06, 02:11 PM

I wont accept anyones sonar being better then the Americans. Because technology isn't acquired out of thin air. It takes experience and it's a process of learning...i.e the technology tree and how much capital you pump into R&D. Yes, China can make a jet fighter...and a good one...but one to match an F-22?

The US has been playing with Sonar against the Soviets in real combat situations (i.e. not a lab or sim) for nigh on half a decade. Now, historically nuetral Sweden has better Sonar technology then the Americans?

Maybe made by Ikea to boot.

Amizaur · 06-22-06, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Nope...I'll never believe anyone has better systems then the Americans. Never. Equal to...doubtful, but maybe? Better? No. Wishful thinking...that's all.

Yeah, think so still... if it's so good, then no need to design better systems... ;-))) waste of money... ;-)))

"I can't accept" - it sometimes becomes a bad habit of declining reality... ;-) Some thing ARE better in friends of even enemy. It's better to recognise that, accept and work to get ahead, than decline...

Maybe I don't remembed the details, as I mentioned, it's not as good as SURTASS or maybe even TB-29 in deep water, but was demostrated to detect and track quiet (not quietest, but quiet enaugh to give US hard time in excersices) conventional subs from - IIRC - few dosens of kilometers in not so deep water. Something around ten times better than previous generation of such systems. It's not aimed at deep water performance, although should work well, but I suppose it to be better in shallow water scenarios, which are conditions at which european sonars always had to work, and have much more experience in that matter. US admits clearly to be still only learning how to use it's blue water systems in shallow waters. And try to develop new, shallow water systems, often - I have to admit - looking perspectively and relaxing further developing of more advanced passive systems, to go for something like low probability of detection variable depth towed low frecuency active sonar designed to work in shallow waters - completly new class of sonar system. But years and years can pass become it becomes operational, and currently all sub commanders can do is using creative tactics and upgrading theirs software...
Second example - previous generation of european (non-british) active torpedo seekers had acquire range of about 2000m. The best US system, on board of ADCAP, is reporded to have around 5000m max range, maybe bit longer in ideal conditions and large (Typhhon) targets. The new Black Shark european torpedo has a seeker with TYPICAL range in good conditions around 7000m. And they don't target Typhoons... smaller things.
So it is better in range and I can bet better in other areas (signal processing, counter-countermeasures). Because it's newer, and today's evolution of computer power and signal processing is very fast, and because the ADCAP has known (details classifield) problems with detection small targets in shallow water "in some types of scenarios" and it's still not fixed today AFAIK. New BlackShark seeker was developed with just that conditions in mond - shallow waters, small targets - because those are european conditions and most wanted export capabilities. Yes, if ADCAP seeker was projected not years ago, but in same time as Black Shark seeker, it would be most probably as good if not better. But it was not, it's older tech, and currently, I believe, in fact worse. In most if not all areas. Just as APG-63V1, even though great radar, is not as good as EF Typhoons Captor. Of course in radars situation is different - there ARE more modern Us radars, APG-77/79/80 familiy. But there are not more modern torpedo seekers or certain types of sonars. Torps and subs have to use older ones. Name it out of phase generation change if you like...

XabbaRus · 06-27-06, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Nope...I'll never believe anyone has better systems then the Americans. Never. Equal to...doubtful, but maybe? Better? No. Wishful thinking...that's all.

I think that sums it up. Doesn't matter if you were talking about sonar or not. Systems implies a wide range of systems.

Oh BTW people don't hate Tom Clancy, just tire of his narrow view of things.

Have you ever read Tom Clancy's SSN? What a pile of tripe. The infallible USS Cheyenne, I fell asleep after chapter 2.

06-27-06, 06:04 PM

And this sums up you dont understand posts written in English. Systems, as in "sonar systems". Apparent by my other posts which told people not to go off topic because this thread is about SONAR.

Narrow view? And what makes you so much of an expert? I suppose you also spent a week with Force Recon, spent some time on a nuclear aircraft carrier etc etc. You also rub shoulders with members of the CIA? Ex-presidents? You spend time in the Pentagon, do you? Advise in National Security matters? Appear in countless documentaries?

Yeah right....get over yourself.

Orm · 06-28-06, 08:04 AM

[quote=XabbaRus
Have you ever read Tom Clancy's SSN? What a pile of tripe. The infallible USS Cheyenne, I fell asleep after chapter 2.[/quote]

Sorry, I had to come back to this discussion, it is so funny now.

Yes, about this book, I thought I beginning to be crazy. It was unbelievable how infallible this sub was. Honestly, I cannot understand that Clancy did not see by himself when writing the novel that a book lacking total suspense cannot be read till the end. I was myself falling asleep.

About the other books, I think Clancy was quite good at the beginning, but after “The sum of all the fears”, the quality went downward. Take the “Bear and the Dragon”, I counted that while the Russians and the Chinese were losing thousands of men on the battlefield during combats in Siberia, the American, which I recall, had quite a lot of troops on the same ground and were also engaged in combats, lost a jeep with two or three men for all the action. That’s Clancy logic. :rotfl:

06-22-06, 04:29 AM	#1
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	The United States and the UK have an open door agreement for military technology, so its safe to assume that the capabilities of all UK equipment is comparable to that of the United States. Germany has the third largest economy in the world, and is a major exporter of high technology goods, as well as military hardware. France is major exporter of military equipment as well, and we are all familiar with the technological capabilities of the Japanese. In general, I'd probably have to go US, UK/Commonwealth, Germany/Japan, France, the rest of the EU and THEN (probably by a fairly wide margin) Russia and China, but that's strictly an amateur appraisal. __________________ LW Last edited by LuftWolf; 06-22-06 at 05:05 AM.

06-22-06, 07:48 AM	#4
Amizaur Sonar Guy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poland Posts: 398 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	They were at least very good - french, german and swedish sonars (swedish radars foer long time equal to US and GB). Sonars in most cases better than russian, the Russians sometimes copied them if managed to get documentation. Currently the new most modern sonars produced by euro-consorties (joined british, german, french and italic partners) are probably on par or in some cases better than US systems (for example torpedo seekers for Black Shark, low frequency sonars for Type-212 and new euro-frigates that are said to have det range up to 10 times better than previous generations and already demostrated impressive detection and tracking ranges against quiet submarines... can't remeber details, maybe I'll find them later but I remember i was very impreessed... something like SURTASS pefrormance on small frigate and shallow water :-) or at least TB-29... Last edited by Amizaur; 06-22-06 at 04:46 PM.

06-28-06, 08:04 AM	#11
Orm Torpedoman Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 116 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	[quote=XabbaRus Have you ever read Tom Clancy's SSN? What a pile of tripe. The infallible USS Cheyenne, I fell asleep after chapter 2.[/quote] Sorry, I had to come back to this discussion, it is so funny now. Yes, about this book, I thought I beginning to be crazy. It was unbelievable how infallible this sub was. Honestly, I cannot understand that Clancy did not see by himself when writing the novel that a book lacking total suspense cannot be read till the end. I was myself falling asleep. About the other books, I think Clancy was quite good at the beginning, but after “The sum of all the fears”, the quality went downward. Take the “Bear and the Dragon”, I counted that while the Russians and the Chinese were losing thousands of men on the battlefield during combats in Siberia, the American, which I recall, had quite a lot of troops on the same ground and were also engaged in combats, lost a jeep with two or three men for all the action. That’s Clancy logic. :rotfl: __________________ Orm

06-22-06, 05:28 AM	#2
Kurushio Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	You forgot to mention the UK is a number one weapons technology producer as well. You know, Marconi? etc. So I doubt they're good thanks only to the "open-door" policy.

06-22-06, 08:47 AM	#5
Kurushio Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Nope...I'll never believe anyone has better systems then the Americans. Never. Equal to...doubtful, but maybe? Better? No. Wishful thinking...that's all.

06-22-06, 02:11 PM	#7
Kurushio Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	I wont accept anyones sonar being better then the Americans. Because technology isn't acquired out of thin air. It takes experience and it's a process of learning...i.e the technology tree and how much capital you pump into R&D. Yes, China can make a jet fighter...and a good one...but one to match an F-22? The US has been playing with Sonar against the Soviets in real combat situations (i.e. not a lab or sim) for nigh on half a decade. Now, historically nuetral Sweden has better Sonar technology then the Americans? Maybe made by Ikea to boot.

06-27-06, 06:04 PM	#10
Kurushio Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	And this sums up you dont understand posts written in English. Systems, as in "sonar systems". Apparent by my other posts which told people not to go off topic because this thread is about SONAR. Narrow view? And what makes you so much of an expert? I suppose you also spent a week with Force Recon, spent some time on a nuclear aircraft carrier etc etc. You also rub shoulders with members of the CIA? Ex-presidents? You spend time in the Pentagon, do you? Advise in National Security matters? Appear in countless documentaries? Yeah right....get over yourself.